The following includes editorial content which is the opinion of the writer.
USA- It’s more important for some companies to virtue signal by paying to assist in murdering children through abortion rather than helping employees pay for or acquire baby formula in the midst of a Biden recession-induced shortage of the vital product.
According to the Daily Caller, fourteen such companies were unable to identify to the outlet any “benefit or initiative” which was designed to help employees pay for baby formula. They are more than willing however to pay for their employees to abort their children.
The companies, which included Yelp, OkCupid, Alaska Airlines, Lyft, and Meta, the parent company of Facebook answered a request by the Daily Caller by claiming to offer a virtual smorgasbord of benefits to employees, including covering travel costs for them to receive an abortion.
None however provided an example of how they are working to assist mothers obtain baby formula as the shortage of it has reached epidemic proportions.
All of these companies, whose leaders clearly have zero understanding of how our system of government or the Constitution works, all weighed in on the Supreme Court’s decision last week to vacate the ill-advised and clearly unconstitutional Roe V. Wade decision, in place for about 50 years.
For example Yelp’s co-founder and CEO Jeremy Stoppelman claimed the decision puts women’s health “in jeopardy.”
“This ruling puts women’s health in jeopardy, denies them their human rights, and threatens to dismantle the progress we’ve made toward gender equality in the workplace since Roe. Business leaders must step up to support the health and safety of their employees by speaking out against the wave of abortion bans that will be triggered as a result of this decision, and call on Congress to codify Roe into law,” Stoppelman said.
Um, hate to tell you this Jeremy, but it is unconstitutional for Congress to codify Roe into law and violate the 10th Amendment, which states for your edification that:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
A little constitutional law class might be in order, Jeremy.
According to a Yelp spokesperson, they told the Daily Caller the company implemented a so-called “caregiver reimbursement to be used toward expenses like the cost of a babysitter or nanny, educational courses on safety for families, or lactation classes.” He further said employees of the company have access to therapy for themselves and their dependents over 13.
Yelp however could not identify any kind of initiative it participates in to assist employees in locating and acquiring baby formula.
Meanwhile OkCupid, a dating app, told the Daily Caller through its spokesman that under that company’s healthcare plan, employees are covered for ‘travel and lodging costs for any employee who needs to travel out of state to receive care,” while also covering adoption and surrogacy fees for same-sex and other couples.
The spokesman, Michael Kaye, said he was unaware of any programs to assist employees in obtaining baby formula.
In the case of Alaska Air, a spokesperson said that while they are “standing by” to assist in distributing baby formula to “any employees in need, they likewise couldn’t identify a program or specific benefit to do so.
A Lyft spokesperson said the company provides reimbursement for the cost of adoption, donor and surrogacy, and also provides reimbursement for the cost of breast milk delivery in accordance with a partnership with a company called Milk Stork. That company likewise could not provide any company initiatives created to assist in locating baby formula.
Meta, while offering a “litany” of wellness and health benefits to employees, offers no such program to locate baby formula. Microsoft refused to even acknowledge the question posed by the outlet.
Of course, it’s clear why companies choose to pay for babies of their employees to be killed in the womb…it’s better for their bottom line, a narrative which was admitted to by a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum.
Kelsey Bolar told the Daily Caller that it is cheaper to pay for women’s’ abortions than it is to pay for health care, maternity leave, and the child’s health care benefits.
‘Offering to pay for an employee’s abortion is a cheap way, literally and figuratively, for companies to ‘support’ women,” Bolar said. “After all, it’s much easier for companies to pay for an employee to get an abortion than it is for companies to pay for a pregnant woman’s health care benefits, her maternity leave, and her child’s new health care benefits,” she said.
“None of these companies putting out press releases explaining what they’re doing in light of Roe to support working mothers,’ Bolar continued. “This is not pro-woman. It’s anti-mother.”
It should be noted that the Independent Women’s Forum does not take an official position on the abortion issue.
A number of other woke corporations, among them Disney, Johnson & Johnson, Tesla, JP Morgan Chase, Bumble, Netflix, Expedia and Dick’s Sporting Goods refused comment to the Daily Caller for publication.
For all these woke companies virtue signaling about abortion, perhaps if they knew the real story behind the practice they might feel differently.
The following includes content which is editorial in nature and expresses the opinion of the writer.
USA-Planned Parenthood is to the pro-abortion movement what ice cream is to Joe Biden. And somehow black politicians such as Maxine Waters and others sing the praises of the organization, founded in 1942 by a woman named Margaret Sanger.
Despite leftists singing the praises of Sanger and Planned Parenthood, she herself wasn’t an abortion activist. What she was however was a racist eugenicist who hated blacks.
In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth-control clinic in Brooklyn, New York which started a career in social activism, according to American Greatness. Sanger founded the organizations as part of her crusade for contraception, which she believed was vital in order to obtain social progress.
While women later on in the 20th century demanded birth control in order to “liberate” women from the alleged tyranny of the female body, Sanger’s purpose in forming planned parenthood was much more evil.
As part of the so-called “progressive era,” elite leaders of the progressive movement sought to push for an Anglo-Saxon (aka white)-oriented eugenics policy which would transform the United States into a more “ideally American,” or “white” appearance.
Sanger in fact didn’t event try to hide what she was doing. She penned an essay in 1919, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” in which she pushed birth control for the purposes of the eugenics movement. She argued that “elimination of the unfit” could not come about without widespread access to birth control.
So what exactly did Sanger mean by “unfit?” She explained:
“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation as physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy.”
Adolf Hitler couldn’t have said it better himself.
Understand again that Sanger and the rest of her 20th century advocates of eugenics were not abortion advocates themselves. That said, they would no doubt be very happy with the current state of affairs concerning abortion, which has furthered their goal of eliminating “undesirable” parts of the population.
The early 20th century eugenics movement was comprised of so-called elites who saw contraception and sterilization as a means of eliminating reproduction for unwanted minorities; in this case non-white Americans, the poor, and mentally disabled or others deemed “unfit.”
For example, Clarence Little, a university president and genetic researcher, served on Planned Parenthood’s founding board. He believed increasing the availability of birth control would help to protect “Yankee stock” or what Sanger referred to as of “unmixed native white percentage.”
In Woman and the New Race, Sanger wrote, “The feebleminded are notoriously prolific in reproduction.”
Make sense now?
According to the piece, Sanger, Little, Lothrap Stoddard and Havelock Ellis drilled down specifically on widespread contraception—some also supported sterilization—which was intended to reduce the birth rate among undesirable populations. They didn’t see eugenics as a tool to promote birth control; rather they looked at it the other way around.
By pushing birth control and sterilization—and eventually abortion, this would how they would achieve their ultimate eugenic goals. These goals would eventually prove to be highly influential with some of the country’s foremost institutions.
While people refer to the current conservative makeup of the Supreme Court as “radical,” they should read up on a 1927 Supreme Court decision, where Justice Oliver Wendell Homes voted in the majority to allow forced sterilization of the institutionalized, ostensibly to protect the “health of the patient and the welfare of society.”
The patient, Carrie Buck, was a patient at a mental hospital to whom Holmes referred to as “a feeble minded woman.” He wrote in his affirmation to the decision that the Virginia law prevented the nation from “being swamped with incompetence.” He continued, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Later on in a letter to a friend, Holmes wrote he had “delivered an opinion upholding the constitutionality of a state law for sterilizing imbeciles the other day—and felt that I was getting near the first principle of real reform.”
While the formal eugenics movement faded out in the 1940s, the current pro-abortion movement, which leads to the disproportionate deaths of non-white and disabled children still accomplishes the same thing.
For example, the darling of the radical left, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, defined Roe v Wade as being a decision about population control, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
While it is uncertain if Ginsburg was actually endorsing eugenics, she told Elle magazine in 2014 that where abortion is concerned, “it makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”
Why do you think white supremacists are among the biggest supporters of abortion? They cheer abortion as eliminating non-white children at a disproportionate rate, thereby limiting the growth of that segment of the population.
Richard Spencer, an avowed white supremacist, said he supports abortion because, “the people who are having abortions are generally very often black or Hispanic or from very poor circumstances.” He also said that white women often use abortion “when you have a situation like Down Syndrome,” which he said is an acceptable use of abortion.
Spencer then said that “the unintelligent and blacks and Hispanics…use abortion as birth control,” something he says should be cheered.
It has been difficult for Planned Parenthood to distance itself from Sanger’s racist views and in 2021, amid continuing racial tensions in the US, attempted to put space between the organization and its founder.
In a New York Times op-ed, Planned Parenthood’s president Alexis McGill Johnson wrote that the group was “done making excuses for [its] founder” and it was prepared to “reckon with Margaret Sanger’s association with white supremacist groups and eugenics.”
One year prior, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York denounced Sanger’s racist past and removed her name from its flagship clinic.
“The removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color,” Karen Seltzer, chair of the New York affiliate’s board, said in a statement.
That said, the organization still pushes Sanger’s racially discriminatory beliefs, whether intentional or not.
In the op-ed, Johnson wrote:
“We are committed to confronting any white supremacy in our won organization, and across the movement for reproductive freedom.”
Of course Planned Parenthood’s mea culpa only came after the George Floyd riots of 2020 and in the midst of criticism from minority groups of various groups and organizations. Pro-life activists had long pointed out Sanger’s racist views for years, however, were greeted with silence by the group and its supporters.
In fact, between 1966 and 2015, the group gave its highest honor, the annual “Margaret Sanger Award,” to “recognize leadership, excellence, and outstanding contributions to the reproductive health and rights movement.” Among winners of the award have been Hillary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Despite the New York group trying to distance itself from Planned Parenthood’s sordid history, it continues to operate in the same manner Sanger and her compatriots had envisioned. Due to Planned Parenthood’s obscene advocacy of abortion, the last 50 years have seen the damaging effects of racial inequality in the U.S. while Planned Parenthood profits financially.
Former NFL tight end Benjamin Watson succinctly put it:
“The same Sanger they [Planned Parenthood leaders] claim to disavow would applaud their efforts and results, as a disproportionate percentage of black children have been killed in Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics.”
The location of Planned Parenthood clinics throughout the U.S. are no mistake. According to Ryan Bomberger’s Radiance Foundation, nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clinics are located within walking distance of neighborhoods occupied by primarily black and Hispanic residents. While they claim this is to service people who otherwise might not have access to women’s healthcare. However there are statistics and damn statistics and the damn statistics tell an awful truth.
Despite the fact black women comprise only 13 percent of the female population in the U.S., black women represent over one-third of all abortions practiced in the United States each year. Black women are five times more likely than white women to obtain abortions, while Hispanic women are twice as likely. Furthermore, abortions are highly-concentrated among low income women.
How bad is it? According to statistics, more black children were aborted in New York City than were born alive between 2012 and 2016. During that time frame, black mothers in New York had 136,426 abortions, while only 118,126 babies were born. Among all other races, births far surpassed abortions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that in 2019, black women accounted for 38.4 precent of all abortions in the U.S., by far the largest percentage. White women meanwhile only had 6.6 abortions per 1,000 women; black women had 23.8 abortions per 1,000 women. And those statistics don’t include abortion-friendly states such as New York and California, which refuse to break down their abortion statistics demographically.
Not surprisingly, black women don’t think about abortion the way the big mouths in the national abortion rights movement do. According to Christina Bennett, a pro-life activist:
“Abortion supporters talk about things like ‘reproductive justice’ or ‘reproductive freedom,’ but this language doesn’t trickle down. The women having the abortions aren’t thinking in this language. It’s really the elite, privileged women who push this message that abortion is health care.”
As if to prove her point, Bennett told the story of a pro-choice group that was handing out candles which said “abortions are magical” to hand out to volunteers.
“If I was to take those to the inner-city abortion clinic in Hartford and try to hand them out, the girls actually getting abortions wouldn’t want those candles. That’s not their reality. They’re getting an abortion because they have to feed their kids. They already have another child at home, or they’re thinking how their man is going to leave if they have that kids,” Bennett said.
She emphasized that abortion among black and Hispanic women isn’t driven by female empowerment or “choice,” but by matters such as poverty and the lack of other alternatives.
All of this explains why racists support abortion; it has led to a disproportionate reduction of non-white populations in the United States. However leftists and those in the pro-abortion movement claim the opposite is true, claiming the modern pro-life movement is itself a smokescreen for racism.
White Supremacists oppose abortion because they fear it’ll reduce the number of white infants and thus contribute to what they fear as non-white “replacement.” Never underestimate the way these issues and agendas are linked. This turns “intersectionality” on its head.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) August 11, 2019
“White Supremacists oppose abortion because they fear it’ll reduce the number of white infants and this contribute to what they fear as non-white ‘replacement,’” said far-left wackjob Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe in 2019. “Never underestimate the way these issues and agendas are linked. This turns ‘intersectionality’ on its head,” Tribe continued.
Then in a 2020 article in GQ titled “The Anti-Abortion Movement Was Always Built on Lies,” the author Laura Bassett made the dyslexic claim that Republicans prior to Ronald Reagan were pro abortion because they were racist and then Republicans after Reagan became pro-life because they were racist.” Got it? Heads I win, tails you lose.
For another incoherent argument, there’s another law professor, this time New York University law professor Melissa Murray, who in an interview with Slate said:
“Abortion restrictions were fueled by the fear that white women were using abortion and, as a consequence, were not having as many children, and the white race was about to be overwhelmed by African Americans and immigrants.”
The clearly racist process of abortion is bad enough, but now there are other reasons some women choose to have abortion—sex and disability.
Some women have taken to choosing abortion because of some unwanted characteristic of their unborn child. For example, a woman is pregnant and finds her unborn baby is susceptible to something such as Downs Syndrome.
Some women choose to abort a baby because they wanted a girl and are pregnant with a boy. This apparently still counts in a world where some now claim that gender is “assigned” at birth by a doctor, not based on biological concerns.
In some parts of the world, China and India for example, abortions may be chosen because of the gender of the child—usually a female in those cases. According to a 2019 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they discovered that over a span of some 50 years, more than 23 million girls were “missing” as a result of so-called “discriminatory” abortion. Researchers found China (11.9 million) and India (10.6 million) accounted for over 90 percent of the missing girls.
The practice has also been making its way to the West. A political economist, Nicholas Eberstadt argues there have been some disturbing developments concerning female births. In a 2011 article, “The Global War against Baby Girls,” he wrote:
In both the United States and the United Kingdom, these gender disparities were due largely to sharp increases in higher parity SRBs [sex ratios at birth], strongly suggesting that sex-selective abortions were the driver. The American and British cases also point to the possibility that sex-selective abortion may be common to other subpopulations in developed or less developed societies, even if these do not affect the overall SRB for each country as a whole.”
And what of unborn children with disabilities? There is a lot of evidence showing that abortion is often a choice when an unborn child is diagnosed through testing with some type of disorder or sickness.
In 2017, CBS News breathlessly reported that Iceland was leading the world in “eradicating Down syndrome births.” Sounds good, right? Iceland produced some type of cure for Down Syndrome that could be celebrated. Actually, not so much. The country uses prenatal testing and abortion that pretty much eliminates children diagnosed with Down syndrome. Eighty-five percent of expectant mothers in Iceland receive the prenatal test and nearly 100 percent who get a Down Syndrome diagnosis choose to abort their child.
In a chilling statistic, only two children with Down Syndrome are born in Iceland each year, often the result of faulty tests. As opposed to eradicating Down syndrome, Iceland has merely eradicated children with Down syndrome.
The numbers in other countries are no better—Denmark comes in at about the same rate as Iceland, the UK 90 percent of Down syndrome diagnosed babies are aborted, while in the US the average runs between 61 percent and 93 percent—narrowed down by researchers to a “weighted mean” of 67 percent.
Pro-abortion zealots see no problem whatsoever with aborting a baby which may be susceptible to Down syndrome or other illness. In 2018, Ruth Marcus, Washington Post columnist, said she “would’ve aborted a fetus with Down syndrome” while defending women who decide to do so.
“I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated [my] pregnancies had the testing come back positive. That was not the child I wanted.”
But see, it’s all about “women’s health choices.”
Those who advocate for killing children likely to be born with Down syndrome attempt to justify it, claiming they are trying to “prevent” suffering of the child. However studies show that 99 percent of individuals with Down syndrome are happy, 97 percent said they liked who they are, while 96 percent were happy with how they looked.
The other issue? Prenatal testing can be wrong, with a January 2022 New York Times report saying they can be wrong in as many as 90 percent of cases.
In the United States, a number of states have passed laws prohibiting “discriminatory abortion,” or abortion after a pre-natal examination indicates the possibility of an issue. Planned Parenthood has fought tooth and nail against such legislation.
Where Planned Parenthood is concerned, they have never provided a shred of evidence showing that women’s health requires aborting a child due to his or her race, sex, or genetic disorder.
In fact, Planned Parenthood condemns all types of discrimination except when it occurs in the womb. Abortion proponents refuse to support laws protecting unborn children from discrimination based on race, sex, or disability, claiming it is being done as a necessary component of “women’s health care.”
Planned Parenthood is all abortion, all the time. It doesn’t matter the race, gender, or disability. And their pushing for abortion on demand is adversely affecting the minority community in the country. Make no mistake about it.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!